Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nightarchaon

macrumors 65816
Sep 1, 2010
1,393
30
You have no need to comment on it then. The OP was wondering if the current version would run well on his hardware. Not if you approved of the game or not.

I was amazed it wouldn't run on modern hardware, as far as i know when i see a couple of people i know who still play play the game, they haven't really overhauled the graphics engine in any noticeable way, and as an old Nvidia 8600m would happily run WoW at the cataclysm update at resolutions between 1440x900 and 1920x1080 (lower end for those huge raids) my assumption was that any of the modern GPU equipped macs (except the discreet intel ones) would drive resolutions up to and including retina at "playable" levels, if your not one of these people who think a games unplayable unless your getting 300fps (For the record, i class 30fps acceptable for gaming, 60 a bonus if achievable)
 

Smurfpoop

macrumors newbie
Jun 29, 2013
7
0
Southern California
Thanks for everyones feedbacks! I really appreciate it.

I got the Macbook Pro Retina 15 with same specs including the SanDisk SSD @ 512GB. I ran World of Warcraft recently with the help of the guys in the Macrumors IRC room. The best I could do was 27 FPS on Ultra.

If I turned down Shadow quality I got around 37 FPS. I honestly preferred it at "Good" settings because I honestly just noticed going from "Good" to "Ultra" only improved the terrain. Lowered those two settings and I got a decent 100 FPS. With the retina screen it seems to look just as good as "Ultra". I'm in no way an expert but like I said I just fooled around with it and that's what I got. It was playable on "Ultra" but found that was nice and smooth on "Good" settings.

Not to mention the Macbook Pro didn't have to work as hard. When I had it on Ultra the fans would kick in kinda loud...:confused:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.